Are the Machs as Durable as the trusty Old 5.0L Mustangs?

[dan]

I have always been a true 5.0 mustang guy, & never thought I'd consider purchasing a stang with a 4.6, untill I fell for the Mach. As I learn more from this site, I have started to wonder if these Machs will hold up as well as the trusty old 5.0 with the T5 tranny's have on a long term basis, say 5 or 10 yrs down the road.
First, I learned that the 4.6 block is aluminum, then, I find out that the tranny is not a borg warner, but one made in Mexico. How do you guys feel about the durability of the car. Seeing as I won't have mine untill next month, I was looking for some feedback from someone else...

[340.29m/s]

As far as teh actual block, I heard it is much more sturdy than the old 5.0's (the internals are not as good as what was in the 5.0 though, besides the crank I guess)

This is just what I have heard... I was never really a 5.0 guy.

[1 BULLITT]

Other than the tick problem that some of us have had, the 4.6 is a work horse. Give it proper maintenance and care, and it'll last for a long time. Ford has been extremely successful with the different variations. Over at BON, there is a member that had over 200 runs at the strip before he took the engine apart to rebuild and upgrade. That says quite a bit. I've had 7 Mustangs with the 4.6 and couldn't be happier. You made a good choise.

[Berman]

4.6s will go a long, long time. The rods and pistons suck compared to the 5.0 though. The engine won't last as long as a 5.0 will with a power adder, but if you leave it mostly stock I think it'll last just as long.

[codymach]

I believe it is this months issue of 5.0 or MM and FF that has an article on the 4.6 and 5.0 I haven't had time to read it yet but you may want to pick up a copy and check it out.

[mvp]

from what i've read,the 4.6 block is a very good piece. i think iread mm&ff where a guy talked about constantly seeing cracks in 5.0 blocks webbing and never seeing that with a 4.6, he said 4.6 engines had come in where the pistons have been fried but the block was fine.

[chuckspeed]

Overall the 4.6 is a much better motor than the 5.0.

the 5.0 is a derivation of the original lite casting 260 which made its debut in the early 60's. Back in the day, it was panned byt the y-block (292-427) faithful as a non durable design - sound familiar?

The architecture of the mod 4.6 is much better overall; the engine uses a longbolt design to achor the heads - better deck sealing; better dimensional stability, stronger, and most importantly to us car geeks - the bores don't go out of round when the head studs are torqued.

A 4.6 will tolerate high revs much better the a pushrod 5.0, and the powdered metal conrods are as good as they get - as long as you don't go past 400 HP.

Bottom end is much better than the 5.0; will last longer; especially with a forged crank (Mach 5speeds have this).

As for engine materials (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) but the Mach runs an iron block, yes? Only the 4V NA cobras got the alloy block.

The only downside is the 4.6 has not historically had the benefit of 40+ years of performance parts. the 'old' 289/302 was a mild beastie in stocker trim; it took many years of racin' to get the most out of the motor.

After nearly 15 years of development, the 4.6 is now beginning to wake up...there are guys getting 600+ HP out of 4.6's - and they live to tell the tale. It's no accident that the 4.6 Mach equals the performance of the 428 SCJ Mach - something no 5.0 was ever able to do out of the box!

[jbrad88]

If you have read any of my posts, you know I am a diehard 5.0 owner. I absolutely love these cars. We bought the Mach for a lot of reasons, but most of all because I was about as sure of the 4.6 as I could be. I have friends who are Mechanics, and they tell me all the time that they see the various versions of the 4.6 come in with 200000-300000 miles on them (fleet vehicles, trucks etc) and they do not have a drop of oil anywhere on the engine.

Do I believe the 4.6 will hold up as well. Yes. Do I dread the day I have to learn to degree 4 cams? Yes...Will I ever put forced induction on it

The rest of the car is not that far removed from the Fox cars. Better in many ways...But aside from the electronics and the engine, it is "basically" the same car.

By the way, the tranny is no longer a Borg Warner because Tremec bought borg warner a few years back...

[dan]

Cool, thanks for the info guys, I feel a little more confident now!!
Mach On!

[blazinsteed]

if you really want a good indicator of what it can do think of all the cop crown vics and taxis you see on the road

[mvp]

the mach has an aluminum block

[DanK]

I second the aluminum block!

[Jester]

Originally posted by DanK
I second the aluminum block!

I third. The underside of the motor is silver and shiny, especially the dowl pin inserts by the oil pan.

[jbrad88]

Chuckspeed...

1 correction...the 302 is a descendant of one earlier windsor than the 260...Do not forget the 221...

Also, these are aluminum blocks...The only 4.6 4v I am aware of that has the iron block is the 03 cobra...

all other variations of the 4v are aluminum...

as far as making power with the 5.0...remember that engine is and was the little engine that could, did, and is still doing. It was no where as well designed as the 4v engine. Ironically, the only real weak point in a stock 5.0 was the block. Even the old cast crank holds up well into the 500 hp range, which is amazing given the fact it is no where near as sophisticated a piece as the crank in the 5speed mach's. I had countless friends running 12-13 lbs of boost on stock shortblock motors and had them live a long time. Had no reason to, but they did.

[MachKid03]

It's good to hear some positive things about the 4.6L It wasn't too long ago that the 5.0 people were bad-mouthing the 4.6 people everywhere you looked. Aparently the 5.0 people couldn't respect the 4.6 people because bigger is always better. But then 1999 came along and the stock 4.6 would blow away a stock 5.0 and things then seemed to change. I thought is was kinda funny after I bought my 99 GT that alot of my 5.0 friends were all of a sudden afraid of my car (with the 4.6)... the same guys who bad-mouthed them a few weeks earlier. You still ocassionally still see a thread on StangNet about how the 5.0 is superior, but rarely do you see 4.6 people trashing the 5.0 because many of us have had a 5.0 and respect it for what it is/was. Such a shame that fellow Mustang owners can't respect each other somtimes...

[jbrad88]

machkid03..

remember that a lot of the 5.0 guys were bad mouthing the 4.6 out of plain old ignorance and the fact that the 4.6 that we first got in 2v form was a slug. There were a whole lot of people out there who did not read ahead and see what the modular family had coming. The PI motor in 1999 really woke up a few people.

Personally for me, and just gut wrenching torque I will always prefer the pushrod engine. That little 302 of mine with the gt 40 package an ecam and headers made @ 340 lb ft to the wheels @ 3200rpm (thru the converters). Using my preferred 12% loss = 386lb ft at the flywheel...It also got 24 mpg on the freeway with 4.10's in the back.

I will always see the 302 thru rose colored glasses, but without evolution, we would never get any better...The 4.6 engine is one wildly untapped design. I have said it before and will say it again, these Mach's should have come out with at least a 385 horse 4.6 4v. The cobra could have and should have been a 450 horse NA motor. This engine family has enormous potential. I just hope we all get to see it evolve as it should...

[DanK]

Come on aftermarket! Build it and we will come!